Comments on: Newspapers vs. search engines http://blog.agrawals.org/2007/04/07/newspapers-vs-search-engines/ Rocky Agrawal's blog on search, wireless, maps and Web 2.0 Fri, 19 Feb 2010 17:08:58 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Drew http://blog.agrawals.org/2007/04/07/newspapers-vs-search-engines/#comment-25169 Drew Mon, 18 May 2009 19:12:44 +0000 http://blog.agrawals.org/2007/04/07/newspapers-vs-search-engines/#comment-25169 “If all of the newspapers in America did not allow Google to steal their content, how profitable would Google be?” Zell said during the question period after his speech. “Not very.” Actually, newspapers already have the power to prevent Google from stealing their content. They choose not to mainly because the reality is that they know that Google sends them far more in search traffic than they could ever get without it. So basically, they want companies like Google to pay them extra money on TOP of already providing them, for free, huge chunks of their readership. I wonder what would happen if Google started charging newspapers money for showing even regular search results to their sites. “If all of the newspapers in America did not allow Google to steal their content, how profitable would Google be?” Zell said during the question period after his speech. “Not very.”

Actually, newspapers already have the power to prevent Google from stealing their content. They choose not to mainly because the reality is that they know that Google sends them far more in search traffic than they could ever get without it.

So basically, they want companies like Google to pay them extra money on TOP of already providing them, for free, huge chunks of their readership.

I wonder what would happen if Google started charging newspapers money for showing even regular search results to their sites.

]]> By: Who reads the front page? « reDesign http://blog.agrawals.org/2007/04/07/newspapers-vs-search-engines/#comment-25115 Who reads the front page? « reDesign Thu, 09 Apr 2009 13:10:02 +0000 http://blog.agrawals.org/2007/04/07/newspapers-vs-search-engines/#comment-25115 [...] [...] [...] [...]

]]> By: Newspaper companies can’t unring the bell « reDesign http://blog.agrawals.org/2007/04/07/newspapers-vs-search-engines/#comment-25103 Newspaper companies can’t unring the bell « reDesign Sun, 05 Apr 2009 19:07:59 +0000 http://blog.agrawals.org/2007/04/07/newspapers-vs-search-engines/#comment-25103 [...] from their own suppliers. Newspapers have long been aggregators. They get a lot of their content from other providers. Instead of relying on a newspaper for Dilbert, I can get it in my email every morning from the [...] [...] from their own suppliers. Newspapers have long been aggregators. They get a lot of their content from other providers. Instead of relying on a newspaper for Dilbert, I can get it in my email every morning from the [...]

]]> By: Who needs newspapers? « reDesign http://blog.agrawals.org/2007/04/07/newspapers-vs-search-engines/#comment-25055 Who needs newspapers? « reDesign Sun, 15 Mar 2009 07:45:57 +0000 http://blog.agrawals.org/2007/04/07/newspapers-vs-search-engines/#comment-25055 [...] A lot of the players in the news ecosystem have already done that. I’ve written before about how most newspapers are just repackagers of information. [...] [...] A lot of the players in the news ecosystem have already done that. I’ve written before about how most newspapers are just repackagers of information. [...]

]]> By: WSJ owners get a whopper of an offer « reDesign http://blog.agrawals.org/2007/04/07/newspapers-vs-search-engines/#comment-11191 WSJ owners get a whopper of an offer « reDesign Tue, 01 May 2007 23:09:48 +0000 http://blog.agrawals.org/2007/04/07/newspapers-vs-search-engines/#comment-11191 [...] paper has highly specialized content. At a time when many newspapers are simply repackagers of information, the Journal has unique content that is highly valued by its audience. Among major newspapers, the [...] [...] paper has highly specialized content. At a time when many newspapers are simply repackagers of information, the Journal has unique content that is highly valued by its audience. Among major newspapers, the [...]

]]> By: Disintermediating newspapers (and the most useless RSS feed ever) « reDesign http://blog.agrawals.org/2007/04/07/newspapers-vs-search-engines/#comment-10540 Disintermediating newspapers (and the most useless RSS feed ever) « reDesign Sun, 08 Apr 2007 03:53:22 +0000 http://blog.agrawals.org/2007/04/07/newspapers-vs-search-engines/#comment-10540 [...] April 7th, 2007 I mentioned earlier that one of the big challenges facing newspapers is that much of what they do is unoriginal; many newspapers are just aggregators. [...] [...] April 7th, 2007 I mentioned earlier that one of the big challenges facing newspapers is that much of what they do is unoriginal; many newspapers are just aggregators. [...]

]]> By: Lucas http://blog.agrawals.org/2007/04/07/newspapers-vs-search-engines/#comment-10535 Lucas Sun, 08 Apr 2007 01:10:12 +0000 http://blog.agrawals.org/2007/04/07/newspapers-vs-search-engines/#comment-10535 Before dismissing him, consider for a moment that the billionaire has some experience and insight of value. I actually think Sam Zell has a point, and <a href="http://www.lucasgrindley.com/2007/04/sam_zell_considers_picking_fig.html" rel="nofollow">I've explained why on my blog</a>. What David Lazarus advocates and what Zell supported have little in common. <a href="http://www.lucasgrindley.com/2007/03/go_ahead_i_dare_you_to_listen.html" rel="nofollow">Lazarus misunderstands the economics of the local market</a>. Any newspaper that tries to put up a paid wall will only invigorate new competitors who offer content for free. Zell proposes keeping access to the content free but making mass redistributors or the content nationally pay a licensing fee to do so. Two different economic markets. One clarification of your post: Google News does make money from posting the news. And it does advertise on articles. By driving up links to newspaper Web sites, loads of remnant inventory is created on those sites. Since local advertisers have no interest in these one-off page views, then Google convinces these sites to use Google AdSense for filling the remnant space. This isn't coincidence. Google understands the effect of driving up remnant inventory with Google News. All multi-billion dollar companies are in it for the money, Google included. They're not featuring Google News prominently just to be nice. Before dismissing him, consider for a moment that the billionaire has some experience and insight of value. I actually think Sam Zell has a point, and I’ve explained why on my blog.

What David Lazarus advocates and what Zell supported have little in common. Lazarus misunderstands the economics of the local market. Any newspaper that tries to put up a paid wall will only invigorate new competitors who offer content for free.

Zell proposes keeping access to the content free but making mass redistributors or the content nationally pay a licensing fee to do so. Two different economic markets.

One clarification of your post:

Google News does make money from posting the news. And it does advertise on articles.

By driving up links to newspaper Web sites, loads of remnant inventory is created on those sites. Since local advertisers have no interest in these one-off page views, then Google convinces these sites to use Google AdSense for filling the remnant space. This isn’t coincidence. Google understands the effect of driving up remnant inventory with Google News.

All multi-billion dollar companies are in it for the money, Google included. They’re not featuring Google News prominently just to be nice.

]]>